Month: June 2006

I am generally sympathetic to the concept of personal inury litigation as a way to correct wrongs, but reading crap like this makes it hard to stay that way.

Your father?s stroke may have been caused by his high blood pressure; however, the study that led to the recall of Vioxx from the marketplace showed that users of Vioxx had almost doubled chances of heart attack or stroke, so the chances that your father?s use of Vioxx contributed to his stroke are pretty high.

You should certainly consult with an experienced personal injury Vioxx attorney as soon as possible to discuss your father?s case. You should be able to bring an action against Merck Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Vioxx. Merck knew that Vioxx caused an increased risk of stroke, yet continued to market the drug. However, Merck will certainly point to your father?s high blood pressure as the cause of his stroke, and your damages may be lessened or even eliminated due to this fact.

A case against your father?s doctor, however, may be much easier to prove. As early as 2001, Merck was instructed by the FDA to send letters to healthcare professionals, warning them of the increased risk of heart attack and stroke. In 2002, the FDA forced Merck to relabel Vioxx, recommending that the drug not be prescribed to patients with heart conditions and pointing out the study showing that Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes. Your father?s doctor clearly knew about your father?s high blood pressure as he was prescribing drugs for that condition. Therefore, he should also have known that it was dangerous for your father to use Vioxx. Prescribing Vioxx for your father was professionally unreasonable and negligent on the part of your father?s doctor. This case will probably be more lucrative to you in terms of damages for your father?s stroke.

I love how confident the writers are in their assertions.

As I was trying to poke around the Internet on Vioxx, I stumbled on an interesting site.

In August of 2004, the FDA finally launched its own study, showing that the use of Vioxx was linked to more than 27,000 heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths. The FDA stated, once and for all, that the use of Vioxx did not protect against heart problems. Merck responded by withdrawing the drug from the marketplace.

Talk about playing fast and loose with the facts. The drug was pulled from the market after the data was unblinded at the midpoint review of a double-blind study that Merck was conducting to determine the answer to the cardiovascular risk, in part at the request of the FDA. The FDA was not doing its own study, and Merck withdrew VIOXX from the market because of the results. It did so before the FDA had time to do anything, including forcing a label change or a withdrawl from the market.

In truth, Merck likely could have kept the drug on the market with a “black box” warning label, avoiding at least some of the appearance of impropriety. Because the company yanked it, it unfortunately gives the appearance of some deep secret that the company was hiding something.

At least, according to the same site, the statute of limitations on product liability cases is two years. Since the drug was yanked in early Fall 2005, anyone looking to cash in better hurry up and file.

I’ve been away from my computer recently. A lot.

My work-life balance, consisting mainly of work, has been a primary driver for this. I’ve recently had two projects move in to production use, with a third coming up this week. Throw on top of that an additional three (or four, I’m not really sure) projects in motion and you might understand why I’ve been a little busy.

Coinciding with being given more project work than is reasonable, I’ve had a rash of family outings lately. About five of eight weekends in April/May/June were up in Sparta, at my cousins’ house, for a wedding, graduation party, the Kentucy Derby (Barbaro!), and miscellaneous other events.

Any downtime I managed to find in the midst of all this has been appreciated.